DETAILED ACTION
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
Response to Amendment
The Amendment filed 07/29/2025 has been entered. Claims 19 and 20 were cancelled. Claims 1 – 18 remain pending in the application.
The Applicant’s amendment has overcome each and every claim objection on record and they have been withdrawn.
Response to Arguments
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the Claims 2-5 and 13 have been fully considered but are not persuasive.
Regarding the argument “Applicant has amended Claims 2-5 to clarify that the fins are malleable. This is important because the malleability of the fins allows the fins to be adjusted for discrepancies in the width of the rafter bay during product installation. Nowhere in Geer are the alleged fins described as malleable and certainly not for the purpose of conforming to the width of the rafter bay. In fact, Fig. 8 of Geer and the associated description show projections that are integral to maintaining airflow and structure, suggesting rigidity not malleability”, as recited on Page 7 of the Remarks, the Examiner respectfully disagrees.
Geer recites “the body, formed from a flexible polyolefin foam… the body is flexible enough to bend without breaking” in the Abstract. Accordingly, the integral fins 470 of Geer are made of a flexible polyolefin foam that is flexible enough to bend without breaking. Since the fins are flexible, Geer’s fins 470 are considered “malleable fins”.
Accordingly, the limitations of Claims 2-5 are shown by Geer and the rejection of Claims 2 – 5 are upheld.
Regarding the argument “Applicant has also amended independent Claim 13 and dependent Claim 18 to clarify that when two products are installed in a rafter bay, they are connected at a stepped joint. … Nowhere in Geer or Walked is the specified claimed structure of the stepped design or stepped joint disclosed…”, the Examiner notes the above argument is directed to the amended limitations of Claim 18, not independent Claim 13.
Geer shows two products installed therein (“a plurality of unitary attic rafter vent and insulation dam assemblies… are placed between adjacent rafter joist segments”, Paragraph 0040).
Accordingly, the rejection of Claim 13 is upheld.
Applicant’s arguments with respect to the amendments of Claim 12 and 18 have been fully considered and are persuasive. Claims 12 and 18 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, below.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102
The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action:
A person shall be entitled to a patent unless –
(a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
(a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention.
Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 8, 9, 13, 14, 15, 16, and 17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Geer et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2004/0134137).
Regarding Claim 1, Geer shows (Figure 8):
A product (460) comprising:
a top face (the surface of 465), a bottom face (the surface of 463), a top edge (465), a bottom edge (463), and two side edges (468, 469);
a plurality of channels (466) located on the top face (the surface of 465); and
a plurality of passageways (462) defined within the product (460) between the top face (the surface of 465) and the bottom face (the surface of 463).
Regarding Claim 2, Geer shows (Figure 8):
A malleable fin (470; “the body, formed from a flexible polyolefin foam… the body is flexible enough to bend without breaking”, Abstract) on at least one (as illustrated in Figure 8, 470 are on both ends) of the two side edges (468, 469).
Regarding Claim 3, Geer shows (Figure 8):
A plurality of malleable fins (470; “the body, formed from a flexible polyolefin foam… the body is flexible enough to bend without breaking”, Abstract) on at least one (as illustrated in Figure 8, 470 are on both ends) of the two side edges (468, 469).
Regarding Claim 4, Geer shows (Figure 8):
Three malleable fins (470; “the body, formed from a flexible polyolefin foam… the body is flexible enough to bend without breaking”, Abstract) on each (as illustrated in Figure 8, 470 are on both ends) of the two side edges (468, 469).
Regarding Claim 4, Geer shows (Figure 8):
Three malleable fins (470; “the body, formed from a flexible polyolefin foam… the body is flexible enough to bend without breaking”, Abstract) on each (as illustrated in Figure 8, 470 are on both ends) of the two side edges (468, 469).
Regarding Claim 5, Geer shows (Figure 8):
The three malleable fins (470; “the body, formed from a flexible polyolefin foam… the body is flexible enough to bend without breaking”, Abstract) comprise an uppermost fin (the top 470, as illustrated in Figure 8), an intermediate fin (the middle 470, as illustrated in Figure 8), and a lowermost fin (the bottom 470, as illustrated in Figure 8).
Regarding Claim 8, Geer shows (Figure 8):
A plurality of peaks (467) between the plurality of channels (466) located on (as illustrated in Figure 8) the top face (the surface of 465) of the product (460).
Regarding Claim 9, Geer shows (Figure 8):
The plurality of peaks (467) prevents the product (460) from being deformed or crushed when a compressive force (467 adds structural support to 460 to prevent damage or deformation) is applied to the top face (the surface of 465).
Regarding Claim 13, Geer shows (Figures 1 and 8):
A roof rafter bay (rafter bay of 31, as illustrated in Figure 1) for a structure (10) comprising two products (460; “a plurality of unitary attic rafter vent and insulation dam assemblies… are placed between adjacent rafter joist segments”, Paragraph 0040) installed therein, each of the two products (460) comprising:
a top face (the surface of 465), a bottom face (the surface of 463), a top edge (465), a bottom edge (463), and two side edges (468, 469);
a plurality of channels (466) located on the top face (the surface of 465); and
a plurality of passageways (462) defined within the products (460) between the top face (the surface of 465) and the bottom face (the surface of 463).
Regarding Claim 14, Geer shows (Figures 1 and 8):
The products (460) are installed between (as illustrated in Figure 1) a pair of rafters (adjacent 32s).
Regarding Claim 15, Geer shows (Figures 1 and 8):
The products (460) touch (as illustrated in Figure 1) an underside (the underside of 33) of a roof sheathing (33).
Regarding Claim 16, Geer shows (Figures 1 and 8):
The bottom edge (463) of at least one of the products (460) protrudes from (as illustrated in Figure 1, the product protrudes from the exterior envelope of the roof structure) an exterior envelope (the roof structure of 10, as illustrated in Figure 1) of the structure (10).
Regarding Claim 17, Geer shows (Figures 1 and 8):
The structure (10) comprises a soffit (the soffit in which the soffit vent is installed) comprising a perforated vent (it is inherent the soffit vent is perforated to allow airflow between the exterior and the attic).
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geer et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2004/0134137), as recited in Claim 1 above, in view of Ward (U.S. Patent No. 4,269,007).
Regarding Claim 10, Geer shows (Figure 8):
The bottom face (the surface of 463).
However, Geer lacks showing the bottom face comprises a flame prevention coating.
In the same field of endeavor of roof rafter products, Ward teaches (Figure 1):
It is known in the roof rafter product (28) art for the product (28) comprise a flame prevention coating (“vent 28 can be made having flame resistant coatings”, Col. 3, lines 42-45).
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the surfaces of the product shown by Geer to include a flame resistant coating, as taught by Ward, to increase the safety of the roof by preventing spread of fire.
Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geer et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2004/0134137), as recited in Claim 1 above, in view of Kreizinger (U.S. Patent No. 10,563,398).
Regarding Claim 11, Geer shows (Figure 8):
The bottom edge (463).
However, Geer lacks showing a gypsum wallboard panel adhered to the bottom face.
In the same field of endeavor of frame supported products, Kreizinger teaches (Figure 4):
It is known to adhere a gypsum wallboard panel (2) to a bottom face (as illustrated in Figure 3).
Further, “provide sufficient rotational resistance for most building load situations”, Col. 34, line 65 – Col. 35, line 1.
It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the bottom edge of the product shown by Geer to have a gypsum wallboard panel adhered to it, as taught by Kreizinger, to increase the rotational resistance for most building load situations.
Allowable Subject Matter
Claims 6 and 7 are allowed.
Regarding Claim 6, Geer shows the claimed invention except the intermediate fin protrudes a greater distance from the product than the uppermost fin.
The prior art, either alone or in combination, does not provide a teaching to modify Geer accordingly.
Claim 7 depends from Claim 6.
Claims 12 and 18 are objected to as being dependent on a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims.
Claims 12 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Geer et al. (U.S. Pre-Grant Publication No. 2004/0134137), as recited in Claims 1 and 13 above, in view of Walker (U.S. Patent No. 9,050,766).
Regarding Claims 12 and 18, Geer shows (Figure 8):
The top edge (465) and the bottom edge (463).
However, Geer lacks showing at least one of the top edge or the bottom edge comprises a stepped design.
In the same field of endeavor of ventilated structural panels, Walker shows (Figure 3):
It is known for a product (product illustrated in Figure 3) to comprise a top edge (4, 6) comprises a stepped design (as illustrated in Figure 3, 4/6 extends in a stepped design from 10).
Further, “these matching indents and overlaps aid in fittingly making a first panel 2 to a neighboring second panel 2 in a secure tongue in groove fashion”, Col. 6, lines 50-52.
However, the combination of Geer and Walker does not teach each and every limitation of amended Claims 12 and 18.
The prior art does not teach or suggest amending the combination accordingly.
Conclusion
Applicant's amendment necessitated the new ground(s) of rejection presented in this Office action. Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to DANA K TIGHE whose telephone number is (571)272-9476. The examiner can normally be reached on Monday - Friday 8:00 - 4:00.
Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Edelmira Bosques can be reached on (571)270-5614. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/D. T./
Examiner, Art Unit 3762
/AVINASH A SAVANI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3762